Fear of missing out on artificial intelligence appears to be encouraging some family offices to consider technology investments, a survey suggests. The findings provided point to interest in the technology, but leave an important question unanswered: how much that interest will change investment allocations. The reported figures offer evidence of plans to increase investment in several areas, rather than a direct measure of commitments to AI. That distinction limits how firmly those plans can be linked to enthusiasm for the technology.

The clearest figure concerns private equity: 31% of family offices planned to make more direct investments in that asset class. Just over a fifth indicated the same intention for real estate, and just over a fifth for venture capital. These figures describe the share of family offices expressing an investment intention. They do not describe the proportion of assets being directed into those investments, nor do they establish how much money might ultimately be committed to AI-related opportunities.

Ringham said the technology reaches across many asset classes, offering context for why interest in AI might extend beyond a single investment category. But the survey did not ask family offices how they intended to adjust their allocations around AI. The reported investment figures therefore cannot directly connect the planned increases in private equity, real estate or venture capital to AI. The suggestion that fear of missing out is influencing some investors is narrower than evidence of a measured reallocation toward the technology.

Read more: FranShares pitches franchise stakes from $500 to investors seeking passive income

Private equity stands out within the figures provided because its 31% reading is higher than the stated levels for real estate and venture capital. Even so, that comparison needs care. The reported intention was to make more direct investments; it was not a statement that all such investments would involve technology. Reading the figure as an AI allocation would attach a purpose that the reported figures do not establish. It also would turn a measure of planned activity into something more specific than the findings provided support.

The real estate and venture capital results require the same distinction. Each was described as attracting plans for more direct investment from just over a fifth of family offices. That shared description does not establish identical levels of interest, since more precise figures were not provided. Nor does it show whether the same family offices intended to increase investment in both categories. Treating the categories separately preserves the reported findings without assuming how individual respondents combined their investment plans.

The interpretation centred on fear of missing out and a more cautious reading of the allocation figures need not be mutually exclusive. Some family offices may be drawn toward technology by concern about missing an opportunity, as the survey suggests, while their broader investment intentions remain insufficient to measure that influence. The figures can be consistent with the suggested motivation without proving it. In particular, they cannot establish that AI was the reason respondents planned to expand investment in the named asset classes.

Read more: Deadly Houthi attacks hit Riyadh airport as oil rises

Ringham’s observation also makes the boundary of an AI investment important to the interpretation. If the technology touches many asset classes, a conventional category alone does not reveal whether an investment is connected to it. But the breadth of that potential connection is not evidence that every planned investment has an AI component. The findings provided leave those two questions separate: where family offices intend to invest more, and which of those decisions, if any, reflect an effort to gain exposure to the technology.

There is a further distinction between intention and execution. The reported figures describe what family offices planned, not completed investments. They therefore provide no basis for treating the stated intentions as money already deployed. Likewise, the figures do not measure the size of any intended increase. A share of respondents planning more investment is useful evidence of direction, but it cannot by itself show the financial scale of that direction or its importance within the respondents’ overall allocation decisions.

What comes next for the AI interpretation is an evidentiary question rather than a conclusion supplied by these figures. Establishing a clearer link would require information about which planned investments involve AI and whether interest in the technology prompted those decisions. Understanding the planned scale would also require information about intended allocation changes around AI, which the survey did not ask about. Those are gaps in what can be concluded, not grounds to dismiss the suggestion that fear of missing out is influencing some family offices.

For now, the reported findings point to investment intentions across private equity, real estate and venture capital alongside a suggestion that fear of missing out on AI opportunities is drawing some family offices toward technology. The defensible conclusion stops short of calling those intentions an AI-driven shift in allocations. Ringham’s comments explain why the technology could be relevant across the categories, but the information provided leaves the size, destination and eventual execution of any AI-related change unresolved.